Search (65 results, page 2 of 4)

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=4781,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Within the library world, there is a growing interest in the use of XML in journals, not least because of its implications for e-journal archiving. But what is actually happening in the commercial journals market? How far have XML and its related standards permeated the production of real commercial journals and how do publishers and other providers of journals see this area developing? This paper looks at the activities and future plans of a selection of publishers and aggregators in the STM journals market, although many of the comments relate to the entire journals arena.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=1065,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reveals different patterns of scholarly communication in the XML research field on the Web and in print journals in terms of author visibility, and challenges the common practice of exclusively using the ISI's databases to obtain citation counts as scientific performance indicators. Results from this study demonstrate both the importance and the feasibility of the use of multiple citation data sources in citation analysis studies of scholarly communication, and provide evidence for a developing "two tier" scholarly communication system.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4011) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=4011,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4011, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4011)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1003,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1003, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1003)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1030) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1030,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1030, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1030)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1031,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1031, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1031)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1035) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1035,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1035, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1035)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1038,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1038, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1038)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1049) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1049,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1049, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1049)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=199,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 199, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The design of a publisher's electronic interface can have a measurable effect on electronic journal usage statistics. A study of journal usage from six COUNTER-compliant publishers at 32 research institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Sweden indicates that the ratio of PDF to HTML views is not consistent across publisher interfaces, even after controlling for differences in publisher content. The number of full-text downloads may be artificially inflated when publishers require users to view HTML versions before accessing PDF versions or when linking mechanisms, such as CrossRef, direct users to the full text rather than the abstract of each article. These results suggest that usage reports from COUNTER-compliant publishers are not directly comparable in their current form. One solution may be to modify publisher numbers with adjustment factors deemed to be representative of the benefit or disadvantage due to its interface. Standardization of some interface and linking protocols may obviate these differences and allow for more accurate cross-publisher comparisons.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=1746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An overview of the development of electronic resources over the past three decades is provided, discussing key features, disadvantages, and benefits of traditional online databases and CD-ROM and Web-based resources. This analysis of gains and losses as information resources have shifted to the Internet provides a basis for identifying key issues in the decision to shift collections and resources toward purely digital formats. Ownership of content, licensing terms, and the proliferation of user interfaces are especially important and still unresolved concerns.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=1063,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

The volume of scientific literature typically far exceeds the ability of scientists to identify and utilize all relevant information in their research. Improvements to the accessibility of scientific literature, allowing scientists to locate more relevant research within a given time, have the potential to dramatically improve communication and progress in science. With the web, scientists now have very convenient access to an increasing amount of literature that previously required trips to the library, inter-library loan delays, or substantial effort in locating the source. Evidence shows that usage increases when access is more convenient, and maximizing the usage of the scientific record benefits all of society. Although availability varies greatly by discipline, over a million research articles are freely available on the web. Some journals and conferences provide free access online, others allow authors to post articles on the web, and others allow authors to purchase the right to post their articles on the web. In this article we investigate the impact of free online availability by analyzing citation rates. We do not discuss methods of creating free online availability, such as time-delayed release or publication/membership/conference charges. Online availability of an article may not be expected to greatly improve access and impact by itself. For example, efficient means of locating articles via web search engines or specialized search services is required, and a substantial percentage of the literature needs to be indexed by these search services before it is worthwhile for many scientists to use them. Computer science is a forerunner in web availability -- a substantial percentage of the literature is online and available through search engines such as Google (google.com), or specialized services such as ResearchIndex (researchindex.org). Even so, the greatest impact of the online availability of computer science literature is likely yet to come, because comprehensive search services and more powerful search methods have only become available recently. We analyzed 119,924 conference articles in computer science and related disciplines, obtained from DBLP (dblp.uni-trier.de). In computer science, conference articles are typically formal publications and are often more prestigious than journal articles, with acceptance rates at some conferences below 10%. Citation counts and online availability were estimated using ResearchIndex. The analysis excludes self-citations, where a citation is considered to be a self-citation if one or more of the citing and cited authors match.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1901) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=1901,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1901, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1901)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To explore the belief that digital technology has created a steep and irreversible decline in traditional library use, particularly in borrowing from public and higher education library print collections, with a concomitant effect on familiar patterns of reading and reflection. If digital technology has led to a fundamental change in the way young people in HE process information, should traditional assumptions about library use and educational reading habits be abandoned? Design/methodology/approach - This is a comparative analysis of statistics of library use available in the public domain in the USA and UK. Findings - That reading habits shown in the use of public libraries are arguably conservative in nature; and that recent statistics for the circulation of print stock in US and UK university libraries indisputably show year on year increases, not decreases, except where the digitisation of print originals has provided a generous supply of effective digital surrogates for print holdings. The nature of reading has not changed fundamentally in nature. But where copyright law permits large-scale provision of digital collections to be derived from print originals, these will readily displace borrowing from print collections, leading to lower circulation figures of hard copy items. Research limitations/implications - This paper asserts that the restrictive nature of UK copyright law, which is demonstrably backward by international standards, is a major factor inhibiting university teachers from helping their students migrate from print to digital media. This assertion should be researched in greater depth, with a view to using such research to influence the development of future intellectual property legislation in the UK. Practical implications - Because of the essentially conservative nature of reflective reading for educational purposes, digitisation programmes offer an important way forward for academic library service development. Library managers should not underestimate the persistent demand for traditional reading materials: where such materials are provided in digital or print formats, in most cases the digital formats will be preferred; but where high quality educational resources are only available in print, there is no evidence that the format of alternative digital media is in itself sufficient to lure students away from quality content. Originality/value - This paper questions some of the more casual assumptions about the "death" of traditional library services.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=298,freq=40.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 298, product of:
              6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
                40.0 = termFreq=40.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An argument for extending the circulation of knowledge with new publishing technologies considers scholarly, economic, philosophical, and practical issues. Questions about access to scholarship go back farther than recent debates over subscription prices, rights, and electronic archives suggest. The great libraries of the past - from the fabled collection at Alexandria to the early public libraries of nineteenth-century America - stood as arguments for increasing access. In The Access Principle, John Willinsky describes the latest chapter in this ongoing story - online open access publishing by scholarly journals - and makes a case for open access as a public good. A commitment to scholarly work, writes Willinsky, carries with it a responsibility to circulate that work as widely as possible: this is the access principle. In the digital age, that responsibility includes exploring new publishing technologies and economic models to improve access to scholarly work. Wide circulation adds value to published work; it is a significant aspect of its claim to be knowledge. The right to know and the right to be known are inextricably mixed. Open access, argues Willinsky, can benefit both a researcher-author working the best-equipped lab at a leading research university and a teacher struggling to find resources in an impoverished high school. Willinsky describes different types of access - the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, grants open access to issues six months after initial publication, and First Monday forgoes a print edition and makes its contents immediately accessible at no cost. He discusses the contradictions of copyright law, the reading of research, and the economic viability of open access. He also considers broader themes of public access to knowledge, human rights issues, lessons from publishing history, and "epistemological vanities." The debate over open access, writes Willinsky, raises crucial questions about the place of scholarly work in a larger world - and about the future of knowledge.

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.9, S.1386 (L.A. Ennis): "Written by John Willinsky. Pacific Press Professor of Literacy and Technology at the University of British Columbia and Open Journals Systems Software des eloper. the eighth hook in the Digital Libraries and Electronic Publishing series (edited by William Y. Arms) provides a compelling and convincing argument in favor of open access. At the core of this work is Willinsky's "access principle." a commitment that "research carries with it a responsibility to extend circulation of such work as far as possible and ideally to all who are interested in it and all who might profit from it" (p.xii). One by one Willinsky tackles the obstacles. both real and perceived, to open access. succeeding in his goal to "inform and inspire a larger debate over the political and moral economy of knowledge" (p.xiv). The author does note the irony of publishing a hook while advocating for open access, but points out that he does so to reach a larger audience. Willinsky also points out that most of the chapters' earlier versions can be found in open-access journals and on his Web site (http://www.11ed.educubc.ca/faculty/willinsky.html). The Access Principle is organized topically into thirteen chapters covering a broad range of practical and theoretical issues. Taken together. these chapters provide the reader with an excellent introduction to the open-access debate as well as all the potential benefits and possible impacts of the open-access movement. The author also includes six appendices. with information on metadata and indexing. os er twenty pages of references, and an index. ... All of Willinsky's arguments arc convincing and heartfelt. It is apparent throughout the hook that the author deeply believes in the principles behind open access. and his passion and conviction come through in the work. making the hook a thought-provoking and very interesting read. While he offers numerous examples to illustrate his points throughout the work. he does not. however. offer solutions or state that he has all the answers. In that, he succeeds in his goal to craft a hook that "informs and inspires. As a result, The Access Principle is an important read for information professionals, researchers, and academics of all kinds, whether or not the reader agrees with Willinsky."

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 1226) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=1226,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1226, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1226)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It has been suggested that institutional e-print services will become an important way of achieving the wide availability of e-prints across a broad range of subject disciplines. However, as yet there are few exemplars of this sort of service. This paper describes how physicists make use of an established centralized subject-based e-prints service, arXiv (formerly known as the Los Alamos XXX service), and discusses the possible implications of this use for institutional multidisciplinary e-print archives. A number of key points are identified, including technical issues (such as file formats and user interface design), management issues (such as submission procedures and administrative staff support), economic issues (such as installation and support costs), quality issues (such as peer review and quality control criteria), policy issues (such as digital preservation and collection development standards), academic issues (such as scholarly communication cultures and publishing trends), and legal issues (such as copyright and intellectual property rights). These are discussed with reference to the project to set up a pilot institutional e-print service at the University of Nottingham, UK. This project is being used as a pragmatic way of investigating the issues surrounding institutional e-print services, particularly in seeing how flexible the e-prints model actually is and how easily it can adapt itself to disciplines other than physics.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2960) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=2960,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2960, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2960)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - By tracking the information-seeking and reading patterns of science, technology, medical and social science faculty members from 1977 to the present, this paper seeks to examine how faculty members locate, obtain, read, and use scholarly articles and how this has changed with the widespread availability of electronic journals and journal alternatives. Design/methodology/approach - Data were gathered using questionnaire surveys of university faculty and other researchers periodically since 1977. Many questions used the critical incident of the last article reading to allow analysis of the characteristics of readings in addition to characteristics of readers. Findings - The paper finds that the average number of readings per year per science faculty member continues to increase, while the average time spent per reading is decreasing. Electronic articles now account for the majority of readings, though most readings are still printed on paper for final reading. Scientists report reading a higher proportion of older articles from a wider range of journal titles and more articles from library e-collections. Articles are read for many purposes and readings are valuable to those purposes. Originality/value - The paper draws on data collected in a consistent way over 30 years. It provides a unique look at how electronic journals and other developments have influenced changes in reading behavior over three decades. The use of critical incidence provides evidence of the value of reading in addition to reading patterns.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=3615,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3615, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore roles of electronic texts (e-texts) in research enquiry in literary and historical studies, and to deepen the understanding of the nature of scholars' engagement with e-texts as primary materials. The study includes an investigation of references to e-texts and discussions about researchers' citation practices in interviews. Design/methodology/approach - Qualitative methodology was used to explore scholars' interactions with e-texts in 30 research projects. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used to examine citations and any other acknowledgments of e-texts in participants' prepublications and published works. In-depth semi-structured interviews provided data for findings about researchers' citation practices. Findings - Formal acknowledgments of e-texts do not represent the depth and breadth of researchers' interactions with e-texts. Assessments of the relevance and trustworthiness of e-texts, as well as considerations of disciplinary cultures, had some impact on researchers' citation practices. Research limitations/implications - The study was based on in-depth data-gathering from a small group of participants. It does not have any statistical significance and the findings cannot be generalized, but comparisons with other scholars in literary and historical studies are possible. The study indicated a need for further investigation of changing academic practices in general and citation practices in particular. Practical implications - The findings have implications for the development of standards and institutional support for research in the humanities. Originality/value - The study provides new insights into the phenomenon of a very small number of citations of electronic sources in publications in the humanities, and considers issues related to citations from the perspective of changing academic cultures.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 5071) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=5071,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 5071, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5071)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The academic impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is a prominent topic of debate in the library and publishing communities. Web citations have been proposed as comparable to, even replacements for, bibliographic citations in assessing the academic impact of journals. In our study, we compare Web citations to articles in an OA journal, the Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC), and a traditional access journal, New Media & Society (NMS), in the communication discipline. Web citation counts for JCMC are significantly higher than those for NMS. Furthermore, JCMC receives significantly higher Web citations from the formal scholarly publications posted on the Web than NMS does. The types of Web citations for journal articles were also examined. In the Web context, the impact of a journal can be assessed using more than one type of source: citations from scholarly articles, teaching materials and non-authoritative documents. The OA journal has higher percentages of citations from the third type, which suggests that, in addition to the research community, the impact advantage of open access is also detectable among ordinary users participating in Web-based academic communication. Moreover, our study also proves that the OA journal has impact advantage in developing countries. Compared with NMS, JCMC has more Web citations from developing countries.

Type

a

0.001829468 = product of:
  0.003658936 = sum of:
    0.003658936 = product of:
      0.007317872 = sum of:
        0.007317872 = weight(_text_:a in 1195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007317872 = score(doc=1195,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13779864 = fieldWeight in 1195, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Sponsored by the German Ministry of Education and Research with funding of 800.000 EURO, the German Network of Expertise in long-term storage of digital resources (nestor) began in June 2003 as a cooperative effort of 6 partners representing different players within the field of long-term preservation. The partners include: * The German National Library (Die Deutsche Bibliothek) as the lead institution for the project * The State and University Library of Lower Saxony Göttingen (Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Göttingen) * The Computer and Media Service and the University Library of Humboldt-University Berlin (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) * The Bavarian State Library in Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) * The Institute for Museum Information in Berlin (Institut für Museumskunde) * General Directorate of the Bavarian State Archives (GDAB) As in other countries, long-term preservation of digital resources has become an important issue in Germany in recent years. Nevertheless, coming to agreement with institutions throughout the country to cooperate on tasks for a long-term preservation effort has taken a great deal of effort. Although there had been considerable attention paid to the preservation of physical media like CD-ROMS, technologies available for the long-term preservation of digital publications like e-books, digital dissertations, websites, etc., are still lacking. Considering the importance of the task within the federal structure of Germany, with the responsibility of each federal state for its science and culture activities, it is obvious that the approach to a successful solution of these issues in Germany must be a cooperative approach. Since 2000, there have been discussions about strategies and techniques for long-term archiving of digital information, particularly within the distributed structure of Germany's library and archival institutions. A key part of all the previous activities was focusing on using existing standards and analyzing the context in which those standards would be applied. One such activity, the Digital Library Forum Planning Project, was done on behalf of the German Ministry of Education and Research in 2002, where the vision of a digital library in 2010 that can meet the changing and increasing needs of users was developed and described in detail, including the infrastructure required and how the digital library would work technically, what it would contain and how it would be organized. The outcome was a strategic plan for certain selected specialist areas, where, amongst other topics, a future call for action for long-term preservation was defined, described and explained against the background of practical experience.
As follow up, in 2002 the nestor long-term archiving working group provided an initial spark towards planning and organising coordinated activities concerning the long-term preservation and long-term availability of digital documents in Germany. This resulted in a workshop, held 29 - 30 October 2002, where major tasks were discussed. Influenced by the demands and progress of the nestor network, the participants reached agreement to start work on application-oriented projects and to address the following topics: * Overlapping problems o Collection and preservation of digital objects (selection criteria, preservation policy) o Definition of criteria for trusted repositories o Creation of models of cooperation, etc. * Digital objects production process o Analysis of potential conflicts between production and long-term preservation o Documentation of existing document models and recommendations for standards models to be used for long-term preservation o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. * Transfer of digital objects o Object data and metadata o Transfer protocols and interoperability o Handling of different document types, e.g. dynamic publications, etc. * Long-term preservation of digital objects o Design and prototype implementation of depot systems for digital objects (OAIS was chosen to be the best functional model.) o Authenticity o Functional requirements on user interfaces of an depot system o Identification systems for digital objects, etc. At the end of the workshop, participants decided to establish a permanent distributed infrastructure for long-term preservation and long-term accessibility of digital resources in Germany comparable, e.g., to the Digital Preservation Coalition in the UK. The initial phase, nestor, is now being set up by the above-mentioned 3-year funding project.

Type

a

0.0017899501 = product of:
  0.0035799001 = sum of:
    0.0035799001 = product of:
      0.0071598003 = sum of:
        0.0071598003 = weight(_text_:a in 596) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0071598003 = score(doc=596,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13482209 = fieldWeight in 596, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=596)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is an "information burst" going on in our world. Therefore we think more about the role of information in modern society and in our personal life. The political waves of the peaceful revolutionary process virtually start to erase the borders of the countries drawn on the maps. A little more than ten years ago we had not even a concept for "Belarusian-German relations", because both countries "the new united Germany and the Republic of Belarus did not exist on the maps of the world. Today the communication between our countries covers all aspects of public life "culture" science and education. We have laid a foundation for our economic and cultural cooperation. We already have had some experience in the joint solution of internal and international problems. And "what is most striking" the warm human contacts of the people consolidate and accelerate the process of mutual understanding between our countries and broaden our view. Today no country in the world can yield their citizens more freedom of choice than the "state" of the Internet. The people, freely migrating in a boundless information space, know how to use the invaluable treasures of human thought and creatively increase the achievements of mankind by intellectual work. These people become the pride of every country in our time. In educating, shaping and supporting such persons we see a new social role of the libraries. It is clearly visible that libraries turn into modern information centers. The introduction of new information know-how and the access to electronic information by means of an electronic library satisfy the increasing need of effective and comprehensive information. All steps of the work with documents (publication "search" delivery) are automated. The fast electronic delivery of documents is promoted by the growth of global information networks, by the increase of transfer rates of dates" by the capability of online search in the electronic catalogues and databases connected with the automated systems of the ordering of copies, by the technical equipment and software of scanning and recognition of the text.

Type

a